But just imagine if there was no implied distinction between those fingers. Imagine having hands like that. And imagine yourself gesticulating with hands like that.

Imagine it. You could no longer flip anyone off, and would be forever forced to rely on Mr. Rogers to do it for you.

I long for the day when Mr. Rogers can't flip me off anymore. ;_; I don't think Mr. McDermmot realizes how much of an advantage he has in an argument when my childhood icon is flipping me the bird in each post, as if Mr. Rogers himself is looking at me in harsh judgement... T_T

He's not passing judgement. See how happy he is about it? If Mr. Rogers really were to flip you the bird, he'd also be sure to teach you gently how not to be a screw up. (Not you personally.). And then he'd teach you how crayons were made._________________::lesser crisis mode::

But just imagine if there was no implied distinction between those fingers. Imagine having hands like that. And imagine yourself gesticulating with hands like that.

Imagine it. You could no longer flip anyone off, and would be forever forced to rely on Mr. Rogers to do it for you.

I long for the day when Mr. Rogers can't flip me off anymore. ;_; I don't think Mr. McDermmot realizes how much of an advantage he has in an argument when my childhood icon is flipping me the bird in each post, as if Mr. Rogers himself is looking at me in harsh judgement... T_T

But just imagine if there was no implied distinction between those fingers. Imagine having hands like that. And imagine yourself gesticulating with hands like that.

Imagine it. You could no longer flip anyone off, and would be forever forced to rely on Mr. Rogers to do it for you.

I long for the day when Mr. Rogers can't flip me off anymore. ;_; I don't think Mr. McDermmot realizes how much of an advantage he has in an argument when my childhood icon is flipping me the bird in each post, as if Mr. Rogers himself is looking at me in harsh judgement... T_T

Mr Rogers seems like a brilliant guy, but I've never actually seen his show or anything. I grew up with HOW 2, Art Attack, Carol Vorderman teaching me how to count and various other shows. I don't think we really had an equiv to Mr Rogers._________________- explanation of feminism -

Annnnnd I took a nostalgia right to the feels._________________The Thirties dreamed white marble and slipstream chrome, immortal crystal and burnished bronze, but the rockets on the covers of the Gernsback pulps had fallen on London in the dead of night, screaming. - William Gibson, The Gernsback Continuum

Role reversal is an interesting test for the validity of a potentially sexist argument.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnot really, no
unless you live in some kind of magical world where there isn't any social and cultural difference between men and women

I think exactly the lack of existence of such a magical world is why SA_Penguin finds a role-reversal through a work of fiction to be interesting to him/her/I_don't_know.

What exactly SA_Penguin means by 'sexist argument' is puzzling to me, though. Do you refer to a question regarding the nature of sexism in general, or the nature of sexism in regard to male-priviliged societies?

I never said Monique was referring to Slick.

A "sexist argument" is one that uses, or implies, gender roles to make a point in the argument. If, by reversing the gender roles, you consider the argument invalid, then it is challenging an underlying gender assumption. [Example: all muslim men should wear veils, lest they stir arousal/temptation in women]

So, a "mirror" of this strip would use Slick. He could talk about any girl, or he could talk about Monique. Considering the [relatively recent] changes in their relationship, it's more likely he would talk about Monique. The strip would go something like this:

1. [Slick] I used to think I had a chance with Monique...

2. [Slick] But I didn't. She only wanted me as long as I catered to some fantasy in her head. She never really wanted me.

Almost identical words. Blaming others when their own fantasy is destroyed. Yet the idea of Slick even contemplating violence is unacceptable.
I was hoping the follow-up strip would have her counsellor advising against violence but we're talking about Lime, so I was probably expecting too much.

nor do you appear to understand the implications of your own claims. like, it has apparently not occurred to you to wonder why "the idea of Slick even contemplating violence is unacceptable." you're just taking it as gospel that everything must be the same when you talk about men and women and if you say anything different about either then you are sexist. if you actually believe that, you are an idiot.

plus your whole example is a terrible one that is explicitly designed to push the above claim rather than actually be a "mirror" of what happens in the actual strip, so right off the bat you're not really arguing in good faith.

but since you are pretty much an MRA as is i was probably expecting too much.

nor do you appear to understand the implications of your own claims. like, it has apparently not occurred to you to wonder why "the idea of Slick even contemplating violence is unacceptable." you're just taking it as gospel that everything must be the same when you talk about men and women and if you say anything different about either then you are sexist. if you actually believe that, you are an idiot.

plus your whole example is a terrible one that is explicitly designed to push the above claim rather than actually be a "mirror" of what happens in the actual strip, so right off the bat you're not really arguing in good faith.

but since you are pretty much an MRA as is i was probably expecting too much.

Yes, everything must be the same when you talk about men and women. When both sides are the same, it's called "equality". I thought that was what the Sisterhood wanted. Of course, if you want to call them idiots [or call equality itself idiotic] that is your perogative.

Oh well, what can you expect from a Magnetic Resonance Angiogram [MRA]?

i'd call you out for another misunderstanding, but it's pretty evident that you don't want to understand.

oh well. the good news is that, like everyone else, MRAs die, and that means even they contribute to human progress, by exiting the human population and taking with them their share of ambient attitudes, if nothing else and if only infinitesimally.

I recall a Daily Show interview with afemalesoldier about the new allowance for women in combat. When asked how she explains herself and proves herself to male soldiers who are opposed, she said, "Well, thankfully, I don't have to. They aging out." Then she carried Samantha Bee around a building with triumphant music, because of all the whining that women can't carry grown people in times of emergency.

It made me very happy to see, and has given me new perspective._________________::lesser crisis mode::

Yes, everything must be the same when you talk about men and women. When both sides are the same, it's called "equality". I thought that was what the Sisterhood wanted. Of course, if you want to call them idiots [or call equality itself idiotic]that is your perogative.

Just in case you are missing his point unintentionally:

ShadowCell doesn't think your gender-switching tool is always useless. In your example about veils, it shows exactly what you want it to show. But neither is your tool applicable to all situations. There are a lot of cases when gender-flipped situations are not at all equivalent, specifically because society is not equalized in the way we all want it to be.

Imagine a guy is at a party, says goodbye. He's getting a taxi because he's had a few too many, but a female acquaintance offers him a lift home instead. In the vast majority of cases, this is non-threatening. If you switch the genders, though, it might be very intimidating. Our culture has been very (and is still somewhat) permissive about men taking advantage of drunk women in exactly these sorts of situations, and it's perfectly justified for a woman to feel extremely uncomfortable in the scenario.

Imagine the same for a woman alone on an elevator, until a man joins her. He is blocking the door. The fault is with the history of patriarchal attitudes, not the individual man, but that doesn't stop it from feeling dangerous. Switch the genders and the man probably doesn't even notice the situation. Imagine the same, late at night, on a bus, or just out walking around. Getting ogled, getting followed. Precedent makes these situations unequal.

The point that Shadowcell feels you don't understand is that the history of domestic violence creates the same sort of inequality between thoughts of Monique-hitting-Slick and Slick-hitting-Monique. Your tool doesn't work because the compared situations are unequal, because while domestic violence occasionally includes women assaulting men, most of the time it goes the other way. A man threatening to hit a woman because of dissatisfaction with the relationship is easy to read as a very offensive joke. A woman making the same threat is much more obviously just a verbal expression of frustration._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine